Editing The Wall Street Journal (section)

==Editorial board==
{{Main|Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal}}
''The Wall Street Journal'' editorial board members oversee the ''Journal''<nowiki/>'s editorial page, dictating the tone and direction of the newspaper's opinion section. ''The Wall Street Journal'' does not provide details on the exact duties of board members.

Every Saturday and Sunday, three editorial page writers and host [[Paul Gigot]], editor of the editorial page, appear on [[Fox News Channel]]'s ''[[Journal Editorial Report]]'', where they discuss current issues with a variety of guests. As editors of the editorial page, [[Vermont C. Royster]] (1958–1971) and [[Robert Bartley]] (1972–2000) provided a [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] interpretation of the news on a daily basis.<ref name=vetter>Richard Vetter, "Wall Street Journal", in Bruce Frohnen, ed. '' American Conservatism'' (2006), pp. 898–99.</ref>

Contrasts have been noted between the ''Journal''<nowiki/>'s news reporting and its editorial pages.<ref name="Smith_10/25/2020" /> "While ''Journal'' reporters keep busy informing readers," wrote one reporter in 1982, "''Journal'' editorial writers put forth views that often contradict the paper's best reporting and news analysis."<ref>{{Cite news |last=MacDougall |first=A. Kent |date=November 1, 1982 |title=Books: Taking Stock of Dow Jones |pages=59–63 |work=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> Two summaries published in 1995 by the progressive blog [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]], and in 1996 by the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1325|title=20 Reasons Not to Trust the Journal Editorial Page|last1=Naureckas|first1=Jim|last2=Rendall|first2=Steve|date=September–October 1995|work=[[Extra!]]|publisher=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081107135516/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1325|archive-date=November 7, 2008|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/4/wsj.asp|title=Bartley's Believe It Or Not!|last=Lieberman|first=Trudy|date=July–August 1996|work=Columbia Journalism Review|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080129014101/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/4/wsj.asp|archive-date=January 29, 2008|url-status=usurped}}</ref> criticized the ''Journal''{{'s}} editorial page for inaccuracy during the 1980s and 1990s. One reference work in 2011 described the editorial pages as "rigidly neoconservative" while noting that the news coverage "has enjoyed a sterling reputation among readers of all political stripes".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Scribner |first1=Todd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vRY27FkGJAUC |title=Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices |last2=Chapman |first2=Roger |date=2010 |publisher=M.E. Sharpe |isbn=978-0-7656-2250-1 |editor-last=Chapman |editor-first=Roger |pages=587 |language=en |chapter=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114112810/https://books.google.com/books?id=vRY27FkGJAUC |url-status=live }}</ref>

In July 2020, more than 280 ''Journal'' journalists and Dow Jones staff members wrote a letter to new publisher [[Almar Latour]] to criticize the opinion pages' "lack of [[fact-checking]] and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence", adding that "opinion articles often make assertions that are contradicted by ''WSJ'' reporting."<ref name="wsj-opinion-news">{{cite news |last1=Trachtenberg |first1=Jeffrey A. |title=WSJ Journalists Ask Publisher for Clearer Distinction Between News and Opinion Content |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-journalists-ask-publisher-for-clearer-distinction-between-news-and-opinion-content-11595349198 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=July 22, 2020 |archive-date=December 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211217100403/https://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-journalists-ask-publisher-for-clearer-distinction-between-news-and-opinion-content-11595349198 |url-status=dead|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="auto2">{{cite news |last1=McLaughlin |first1=Aidan |title=WSJ Reporters Call Out Misinformation and 'Disregard For Evidence' From Paper's Opinion Section in Scathing Letter |url=https://www.mediaite.com/print/wsj-reporters-call-out-misinformation-and-disregard-for-evidence-from-papers-opinion-section-in-scathing-letter/ |access-date=July 22, 2020 |publisher=Mediaite |date=July 22, 2020 |archive-date=July 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200721215149/https://www.mediaite.com/print/wsj-reporters-call-out-misinformation-and-disregard-for-evidence-from-papers-opinion-section-in-scathing-letter/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The editorial board responded that its opinion pages "won't wilt under cancel-culture pressure" and that the objective of the editorial content is to be independent of the ''Journal''{{'}}s news content and offer alternative views to "the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today's media."<ref name="auto1">{{cite news|author=The Editorial Board|title=A Note to Readers |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-note-to-readers-11595547898 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=July 23, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201224075015/https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-note-to-readers-11595547898|archive-date=December 24, 2020|url-access=subscription|url-status=dead}}</ref> The board's response did not address issues regarding fact-checking that had been raised in the letter.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/508870-wsj-editorial-board-calls-employee-concerns-about-opinion-page-cancel-culture/|title=WSJ editorial board calls employee concerns about opinion page 'cancel culture'|first=J. Edward|last=Moreno|date=July 24, 2020|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|access-date=April 16, 2024|archive-date=February 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240206024140/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/508870-wsj-editorial-board-calls-employee-concerns-about-opinion-page-cancel-culture/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Editorial positions===
{{conservatism US}}

====Economic====
In the 1900s, the ''Journal'' supported the [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] efforts of President [[Theodore Roosevelt]]. However, after the ownership change from Dow to Barron, the ''Journal'' became far more unequivocally supportive of free-market economics in the 1920s.{{sfn|Scharff|1986|p=[https://archive.org/details/worldlypowermaki0000scha/page/16/mode/2up?q=%22daily+sermons%22 16]}} One editorial in March 1928 criticized Congressional efforts to regulate the securities industry: "People who know nothing about credit, surplus bank funds, collateral, call loans or anything else germane to the question profess to be terrified when the Stock Exchange loans attain the figure of $4 billion or more."{{sfn|Scharff|1986|pp=[https://archive.org/details/worldlypowermaki0000scha/page/28/mode/2up?q=%22People+who+know+nothing%22 28-29]}}

On April 14, 1932, the ''Journal'' published a commentary by former editor [[Thomas F. Woodlock]] criticizing the [[Glass–Steagall legislation|Glass–Steagall]] banking regulation bill: "There are those who cannot endure the sight of autonomous securities markets beyond the control of legislatures, bureaucrats, and, in fact, of courts."{{sfn|Scharff|1986|p=[https://archive.org/details/worldlypowermaki0000scha/page/36/mode/2up?q=%22number+of+pages+would+also+fall%22 36]}}

In the 1980s, the newspaper's editorial page was particularly influential as the leading voice for [[supply-side economics]]. Under the editorship of [[Robert L. Bartley]], it expounded at length on economic concepts such as the [[Laffer curve]], and how a decrease in certain marginal tax rates and the [[capital gains tax in the United States|capital gains tax]] could allegedly increase overall tax revenue by generating more economic activity.<ref name="bartley-obit">{{cite news |title=Bartley, Longtime Journal Editor And Thinker on Right, Dies at 66 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107107510671889000 |access-date=September 22, 2024|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=December 11, 2003 |archive-date=November 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101022312/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107107510671889000 |url-status=dead|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In the economic argument of [[exchange rate regime]]s (one of the most divisive issues among economists), the ''Journal'' has a tendency to support [[fixed exchange rate]]s over [[floating exchange rate]]s.<ref>{{cite report |last1=McCallum |first1=Bennett T. |title=Wall Street Journal Position on Exchange Rates |year=2002 |publisher=Bradley Policy Research Center |hdl=1802/510 }}</ref>

====Political====
[[File:Interview Wall Street Journal (6425462779).jpg|thumb|upright=1|[[Mark Rutte]] (on right), prime minister of the [[Netherlands]], being interviewed by The ''Journal'' in 2011]]
The ''Journal''{{'s}} editorial pages and columns, run separately from the news pages, have a [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] bent and are highly influential in establishment conservative circles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/wsj_trump_editorial_opinion.php|title=Unpacking WSJ's 'watershed' Trump editorial|website=Columbia Journalism Review|access-date=January 1, 2019|archive-date=June 21, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170621040535/https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/wsj_trump_editorial_opinion.php|url-status=live}}</ref> Despite this, the ''Journal'' refrains from endorsing candidates and has not endorsed a candidate since 1928.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/19951/brief-history-newspaper-endorsements |first1=Ethan |last1=Trex |title=A Brief History of Newspaper Endorsements |date=October 23, 2008 |website=Mental Floss |access-date=December 4, 2019 |archive-date=December 4, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204012657/https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/19951/brief-history-newspaper-endorsements |url-status=live }}</ref>

The editorial board has long argued for a pro-business [[Immigration policy of the United States|immigration policy]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Rutenberg |first=Jim |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/washington/03immig.html |title=The editorial page commonly publishes pieces by U.S. and world leaders in academia, business, government and politics |work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 3, 2007 |access-date=June 5, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513210559/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/washington/03immig.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1180807796-2rtP/ypH5CxbIhLG9/DQjg&oref=slogin |archive-date=May 13, 2011 }}</ref>

The ''Journal''{{'s}} editorial page was seen as critical of many aspects of [[Barack Obama]]'s presidency. In particular, it has been a prominent critic of the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act|Affordable Care Act]] legislation passed in 2010, and has featured many opinion columns attacking various aspects of the bill.<ref>Wagner, Michael W., and Timothy P. Collins. "Does Ownership Matter? The case of Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal". ''Journalism Practice'' (2014) 8#6 pp: 1–14. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063#.VIhEWtLF9A0 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011121049/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063#.VIhEWtLF9A0 |date=October 11, 2018 }}</ref> The ''Journal''{{'s}} editorial page has also criticized the [[Energy policy of the Obama administration|Obama administration's energy policies]] and foreign policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-solars-subsidy-bubble-1440975764|title=Big Solar's Subsidy Bubble|date=August 30, 2015|work=The Wall Street Journal|url-status=dead|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://archive.today/20150831171213/http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-solars-subsidy-bubble-1440975764|archive-date=August 31, 2015|access-date=September 23, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-tide-of-war-1476832244 |title=Obama's Tide of War |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=October 19, 2016 |access-date=April 24, 2017 |url-status=dead|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://archive.today/20161019043059/http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-tide-of-war-1476832244 |archive-date=October 19, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-iran-missile-war-1476398945 |title=Obama's Iran Missile War |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=October 13, 2016 |access-date=September 23, 2024|url-status=dead|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://archive.today/20161014043435/http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-iran-missile-war-1476398945|archive-date=October 14, 2016 }}</ref>

On October 25, 2017, the editorial board called for Special Counsel [[Robert Mueller]] to resign from the investigation into [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]] and accused [[Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign|Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign]] of colluding with Russia.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-russians-and-the-fbi-1508971759 |title=Democrats, Russians and the FBI |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |date=October 25, 2017 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |archive-date=October 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20171031125932/https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-russians-and-the-fbi-1508971759 |url-status=dead|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Bond|first=Shannon|title=US conservative media deflects from Mueller probe|url=https://www.ft.com/content/c9b90ab2-be59-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464|url-status=dead|url-access=subscription|work=Financial Times|date=October 31, 2017|access-date=September 23, 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20220420234422/https://www.ft.com/content/c9b90ab2-be59-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464|archive-date=April 20, 2022}}</ref> In December 2017, the editorial board repeated its calls for Mueller's resignation.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-editorial-board-robert-mueller-resign-2017-12|title=Wall Street Journal editorial board calls on special counsel Robert Mueller to resign again|work=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=September 23, 2024|archive-date=December 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210074003/https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-editorial-board-robert-mueller-resign-2017-12|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-attacks-mueller_us_5a26540de4b07324e840359e|title=Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Goes To Bat Against FBI And Robert Mueller For Trump|last=Frej|first=Willa|date=December 5, 2017|work=[[HuffPost]]|access-date=July 24, 2018|archive-date=July 26, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180726051430/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-attacks-mueller_us_5a26540de4b07324e840359e|url-status=live}}</ref> The editorials by the editorial board caused fractures within ''The Wall Street Journal'', as reporters say that the editorials undermine the paper's credibility.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-wall-street-journal-editorial-board-coverage-of-mueller|title="A Different Level of Crazy": Inside The Wall Street Journal's Civil War|last=Pompeo|first=Joe|work=The Hive|access-date=July 24, 2018|archive-date=January 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210119033551/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-wall-street-journal-editorial-board-coverage-of-mueller|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 2021, the Journal published a letter from former President Donald Trump in the Letters to the Editor section of the editorial pages. Other news sources described the contents of the letter as false and debunked claims about the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 presidential election]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/media/rupert-murdoch-january-6-insurrection-election/index.html|title=Rupert Murdoch is letting his media empire spread January 6 and election conspiracy theories|author=Oliver Darcy|website=[[CNN]]|date=October 28, 2021|access-date=October 28, 2021|archive-date=November 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101014344/https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/media/rupert-murdoch-january-6-insurrection-election/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/28/trump-election-letter-wall-street-journal-lie-criticism|title=Wall Street Journal criticized for Trump letter pushing election lie|date=October 28, 2021|website=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=October 28, 2021|archive-date=July 26, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220726122140/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/28/trump-election-letter-wall-street-journal-lie-criticism|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2021/10/27/wall-street-journal-hit-for-publishing-letter-from-trump-with-litany-of-election-fraud-claims/|title=Wall Street Journal Hit For Publishing Letter From Trump With Litany Of Election Fraud Claims|first=Derek|last=Saul|website=[[Forbes]]|access-date=October 28, 2021|archive-date=November 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211129072703/https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2021/10/27/wall-street-journal-hit-for-publishing-letter-from-trump-with-litany-of-election-fraud-claims/|url-status=live}}</ref> The next day, the editorial board published their own critique of Trump's letter.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Facts on Trump's Fraud Letter |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-donald-trumps-fraud-letter-2020-election-11635449578 |access-date=September 23, 2024 |publisher=The Wall Street Journal |date=October 28, 2021 |archive-date=December 21, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211221164906/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-on-donald-trumps-fraud-letter-2020-election-11635449578|url-status=dead|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

====Scientific====
The ''Journal'' editorial pages were described as a "forum for [[climate change denial]]" in 2011 due to columns that attacked climate scientists and accused them of engaging in fraud.<ref>Multiple sources:
* {{cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=J. |last2=Nuccitelli |first2=D. |last3=Green |first3=S.A. |last4=Richardson |first4=M. |last5=Winkler |first5=B.R. |last6=Painting |first6=R. |last7=Way |first7=R. |last8=Jacobs |first8=P. |last9=Skuce |first9=A. |title=Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |journal=Environmental Research Letters |year=2013 |volume=8 |issue=2 |page=024024 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |bibcode=2013ERL.....8b4024C |doi-access=free }}
* {{Cite news |last=Nordhaus |first=William D. |date=March 22, 2012 |title=Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong |language=en |work=New York Review of Books |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ |access-date=August 4, 2022 |issn=0028-7504 |archive-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804021042/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ |url-status=live }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Supran |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |author-link2=Naomi Oreskes |title=Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014) |journal=[[Environmental Research Letters]] |year=2017 |volume=12 |number=8 |pages=084019 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f |bibcode=2017ERL....12h4019S |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite book |last=Powell |first=James Lawrence |title=The Inquisition of Climate Science |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157193 |publisher=Columbia University Press |date=2011 |isbn=9780231527842 |access-date=January 1, 2019 |archive-date=May 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525020933/https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157193 |url-status=live }}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Vardy|first1=Mark|last2=Oppenheimer|first2=Michael|last3=Dubash|first3=Navroz K.|last4=O'Reilly|first4=Jessica|last5=Jamieson|first5=Dale|date=October 17, 2017|title=The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities|journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources|language=en|volume=42|issue=1|pages=55–75|doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061053|issn=1543-5938|quote=One of the tactics successfully used to discredit climate science is typified by Frederick Seitz's 1996 commentary in ''The Wall Street Journal'' in which he argued that the IPCC did not follow its own rules for peer review. Subsequent analysis showed that the IPCC did not transgress any of its rules of peer review, which in fact are more rigorous than the standards of peer review that academic journals typically try to uphold|doi-access=free}}
* Karen Akerlof et al.: ''Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science''. [[Nature Climate Change]] 2, 2012, 648–654 {{doi|10.1038/nclimate1542}}.
* {{cite web |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |title=The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 28, 2014 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804012756/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus |url-status=live }}
* {{cite web |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |title=The Wall Street Journal keeps peddling Big Oil propaganda |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 11, 2018 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/11/the-wall-street-journal-keeps-peddling-big-oil-propaganda |access-date=November 24, 2021 |archive-date=November 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124184804/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/11/the-wall-street-journal-keeps-peddling-big-oil-propaganda |url-status=live }}
* Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap: ''Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science''. [[American Behavioral Scientist]] 57, No. 6, 2013, 754–776, {{doi|10.1177/0002764212469800}} "... and clearly  Fox, leading  conservative newspapers such as the WSJ ... provide powerful provide powerful fora for the promotion of climate change denial."
* {{cite web |last=Cassella |first=Carly |url=https://www.sciencealert.com/major-news-outlets-wall-street-journal-climate-denial-opinion-piece |title=The Wall Street Journal Still Treats Climate Change as "Opinion", And This Practice Needs to Stop |website=ScienceAlert |date=June 12, 2018 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |quote=For years, the WSJ has run opinion piece after opinion piece, questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Too often, these "opinions" are written by authors with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. In May of 2018, for example, the WSJ published an article that proclaimed, "Sea levels are rising, but not because of climate change." |archive-date=August 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812094045/https://www.sciencealert.com/major-news-outlets-wall-street-journal-climate-denial-opinion-piece |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600|title=The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society|work=OUP Academic |date=August 18, 2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-173527-1|language=en-US|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001|pages=125|editor1-last=Dryzek|editor1-first=John S|editor2-first=Richard B|editor2-last=Norgaard|editor3-first=David|editor3-last=Schlosberg|access-date=November 24, 2021|archive-date=June 27, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627112433/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2011 study found that the ''Journal'' was alone among major American print news media in how, mainly in its editorial pages, it adopted a [[false balance]] that overplayed the uncertainty in climate science or denied anthropogenic climate change altogether.<ref name="Feldman">{{Cite journal |last1=Feldman |first1=Lauren |last2=Hart |first2=P. Sol |last3=Milosevic |first3=Tijana |date=May 2017 |title=Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662515595348 |journal=Public Understanding of Science |language=en |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=481–497 |doi=10.1177/0963662515595348 |pmid=26229010 |hdl=10852/59799 |s2cid=32171406 |issn=0963-6625 |hdl-access=free |access-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-date=April 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220412002735/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662515595348 |url-status=live }}</ref> That year, the [[Associated Press]] described the ''Journal''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s editorial pages as "a place friendly to climate change skeptics".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/171649/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/ |title=Skeptic's own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be more critical |agency=Associated Press |first=Seth |last=Borenstein |date=October 30, 2011 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806221235/https://globalnews.ca/news/171649/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2013, the editorial board and other opinion writers vocally criticized President [[Barack Obama|Obama]]'s plan to address climate change, mostly without mentioning climate science.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Corneliussen |first=Steven T. |date=July 8, 2013 |title=Wall Street Journal opinion writers target President Obama's climate plan |url=https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.4.2500/full |journal=Physics Today |issue=7 |page=18350 |language=en |doi=10.1063/PT.4.2500 |bibcode=2013PhT..2013g8350C |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220803174729/https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.4.2500/full/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> A 2015 study found ''The Wall Street Journal'' was the newspaper that was least likely to present negative [[effects of global warming]] among several newspapers. It was also the most likely to present negative economic framing when discussing [[climate change mitigation]] policies, tending to take the stance that the cost of such policies generally outweighs their benefit.<ref name="Feldman" />

[[Climate Feedback]], a fact-checking website on media coverage of climate science, determined that multiple opinion articles range between "low" and "very low" in terms of scientific credibility.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://science.feedback.org/outlet/the-wall-street-journal/?_topic=climate |title=Reviews of content from The Wall Street Journal |website=Science Feedback |publisher=Climate Feedback |access-date=September 16, 2024|archive-date=September 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916024624/https://science.feedback.org/outlet/the-wall-street-journal/?_topic=climate |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=May 3, 2021 |author=Boris Bellanger |title=Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin's new book 'Unsettled'|url=https://science.feedback.org/review/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/ |access-date=September 16, 2024|website=Science Feedback |publisher=Climate Feedback |archive-date=September 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916024819/https://science.feedback.org/review/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/ |url-status=live}}</ref> The Partnership for Responsible Growth stated in 2016 that 14% of the guest editorials on climate change presented the results of "mainstream climate science", while the majority did not. The Partnership also determined that none of the 201 editorials concerning climate change that were published in ''The Wall Street Journal'' since 1997 conceded that the burning of [[fossil fuel]]s is the main [[cause of climate change]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-street-journal-accepts-environmentalist-ad-but-charges-extra/2016/06/13/422cd8e2-3199-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html|title=Wall Street Journal accepts environmentalist ad but charges extra|date=June 14, 2016|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=June 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160615120938/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-street-journal-accepts-environmentalist-ad-but-charges-extra/2016/06/13/422cd8e2-3199-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html|archive-date=June 15, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the 1980s and 1990s, the ''Journal'' published numerous opinion columns opposing and misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the harms of [[Passive smoking|second-hand smoke]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bayer|first1=Ronald|last2=Colgrove|first2=James|date=2002|title=Science, Politics, and Ideology in the Campaign Against Environmental Tobacco Smoke |journal=American Journal of Public Health|volume=92|issue=6|pages=949–954|issn=0090-0036|pmc=1447493|pmid=12036788 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.92.6.949}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lerbinger|first=Otto|title=Corporate Public Affairs: Interacting With Interest Groups, Media, and Government|date=August 15, 2006|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-59999-7|pages=161|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rosenstock |first1=Linda |last2=Lee |first2=Lore Jackson |date=January 2002 |title=Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy |journal=American Journal of Public Health |language=en |volume=92 |issue=1 |pages=14–18 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.92.1.14 |issn=0090-0036 |pmc=1447376 |pmid=11772749}}</ref> [[acid rain]], and [[ozone depletion]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Taubes|first=Gary|date=June 11, 1993|title=The Ozone Backlash|url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|journal=Science|volume=260|issue=5114|pages=1580–1583|doi=10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|pmid=17810191|bibcode=1993Sci...260.1580T|access-date=November 23, 2021|archive-date=November 23, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123181846/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> in addition to public policy efforts to curb pesticides and asbestos.<ref name="handful">{{Cite book|last1=Oreskes|first1=Naomi|url=https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores|title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming|last2=Conway|first2=Erik M.|date=2010|publisher=Bloomsbury|isbn=9781608192939|pages=[https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores/page/94 94], 126, 135, 146, 208–213|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fleischer |first=Doris Z. |date=August 1993 |title=Silent Spring: Personal Synthesis of Two Cultures |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027046769301300403 |journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society |language=en |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=200–202 |doi=10.1177/027046769301300403 |s2cid=144455619 |issn=0270-4676|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Fagin |first1=Dan |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40776758 |title=Toxic Deception |last2=Lavelle |first2=Marianne |date=1999 |publisher=Common Courage Press |isbn=1-56751-163-5 |edition=2nd |location=Monroe, Me. |pages=vii-viii |oclc=40776758 |author-link=Dan Fagin}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Page |first=Benjamin I. |date=July 1, 1995 |title=Speedy deliberation: Rejecting "1960s programs" as causes of the Los Angeles riots |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |journal=Political Communication |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=245–261 |doi=10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |issn=1058-4609 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114112810/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=McCulloch |first1=Jock |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G1cVDAAAQBAJ |title=Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and Its Fight for Survival |last2=Tweedale |first2=Geoffrey |date=July 24, 2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-953485-2 |pages=183 |language=en}}</ref> The ''Journal'' later recognized that efforts to curb acid rain through cap-and-trade had been successful, a decade after the Clean Air Act Amendments.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/02/the-wall-street-journal-dismissing-environmenta/189063|title=The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976|date=August 1, 2012|website=Media Matters for America|access-date=January 1, 2019|archive-date=January 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190102050556/https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/02/the-wall-street-journal-dismissing-environmenta/189063|url-status=live}}</ref>